Google Patents Search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that results come from scraping 'XHR JSON' and lists returned fields, but says nothing about rate limits, blocking, result caps, or authentication needs. The field list is also largely redundant given an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and kept short; every line contributes. The NOTE formatting is slightly awkward but does not waste space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated. However, with no annotations and an undocumented `num` parameter, the definition remains thin for a scraper whose reliability and limits an agent might need to know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, but it only explains `page` (1-based, embedded in the url query string as page=N). The `num` parameter (default 10) is left entirely undefined, and `query` is only inferable from the tool name, leaving a significant documentation gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Scrape') plus named resource ('Google Patents') and a concrete list of returned fields (title, number, inventors, dates, PDF). An agent immediately knows what this tool does and what distinguishes it from the sibling search tools (finance, books, news, etc.).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like google_scholar_search or google_web_search, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The page-placement note is a mechanics tip, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.